Dohsoda

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) is by far my favorite Disney movie of all time. I used to watch this movie on repeat at a young child on VHS. It's a classic Disney productions that manages to excel on many levels. What's remarkable about this move is how well it holds up and how serious it takes it subject matter. Human suffering, personal turmoil, and a drive for scientific and human discovery are weighty themes and this Disney movie pulls no punches. It's cast of actors are fantastic. James Mason's performance as Captain Nemo is brilliant and stoic. his dialogue is poetic and just genius, especially his final narration closing out the movie. Our three heroes portrayed by of Kirk Douglas, Paul Lukas, and Peter Lorre are all uniquely different and interesting. All three characters have different point of views on Nemo's mission and that creates great drama and interesting character dynamics.

On a technical level, this movie is top notch. For a film from 1954, the special effects and under water footage still hold up well. The giant squid sequence is especially a highlight in technical. Also, the action in this movie is also very memorable and it's brilliant in that it keeps building. For example, Peter Lorre and Kirk Douglas run from the beach and escape in a row boat back to the submarine, the Nautilus, then through a genius invention manage to escape the native cannibals, then the Nautilus gets stuck on a reef, a war ship starts shooting at our heroes ship, it gets hit and we go further down into the ocean. Before we can even make rest a giant Squid battles the Nautilus to take on its crew. This is just genius pacing and storytelling on the most primal level.

The direction by Richard Fleischer is solid and swift, the musical score and songs are memorable and stirring, and the production design and art direction are top notch. Overall, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a fun, bold, and exciting adventure movie that is fun for the whole family.

I love this film. Yes, nostalgia has a lot to do with my love, but I don't care. This film came out when I was seven years old and I was in first grade. My mother and father took me to our local movie theater to see it. Harry Potter book mania was in full swing and the phenomenon with the wonderful film series was about to explode with joy. Re- watching the films in order now I can look back on this film with a certain point of view. The first three H.P. films feel like stand alone stories and for the most part set up about 70% of the saga. Now that's was "Sorcerer's Stone is" a wonderful world building movie that keeps getting built upon with each new film.

The greatness of "Sorcerer's Stone" are that it get's everything right 100%. For an adaptation, it follows the book faithfully. Granted there are elements and chapters omitted, but that's the adaptation process. The cast of youthful and seasoned actors are wonderful. Everyone is cast perfectly and each movies the actors grow into their parts with ease and perfection. The Cinematography is colorful and dark, the musical score by the ingenious John Williams is beautiful and magical, the direction by Chris Columbus is sharp as well.

Even though this film is not perfect, no movie really is anyway, I love it. Any criticisms I have with the film generally go with the whole series. Some films do go on too long.The pace in this particular film can drag on. The plot does have an Indiana Jones vibe where it is one even after the other. Some films in the series are plot driven like "Chamber of Secrets" and "Goblet of Fire" and some are character driven like "Prisoner of Azkaban" and "Half-Blood Prince". "Sorcerer's Stone" "Order of the Phoenix" and "Deathly Hallows" are a combination of both character development and plot development. There really is not much for me to nit-pick about this film. It's easy for people to complain about the special effects, but for the film that was establishing the series, the computer generated effects are fine. In my opinion, the whole film series have special effects that range from wonderful to mediocre. But that's just time catching up to the movies.

Overall, this film is wonderful. It's a happy origin tale about the boy who lived and it's full of action, humor, danger, wonder, magic, and most importantly, heart. Fifteen years after its release, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a golden fantasy-family film classic.

On Saturday night I went to see the film Spectre in theaters. The film is the twenty-fourth and newest addition to the James Bond film series. Director Sam Mendes returns from Skyfall, as does Daniel Craig in the lead role. This is Daniel Craig's fourth round as the titular super spy; following 2006's Casio Royale, 2008's Quantum of Solace, and 2012's Skyfall. After fifty-three years, the franchise still strives to give its audiences what they want: action, humor, beautiful people and locations across the globe. One should remember to leave their disbelief at the door before they watch a James Bond film. Do not ask for plausibility when viewing these films. After twenty-three films, do not expect this one to be grounded in any realism. James Bond films are created in complete formalism first and foremost. Starting off with a bang, the film begins with an exciting opening sequence in Mexico. Bond is in pursuit of a man who is part of the organization known as Spectre. Bond is disguise wearing a skeleton costume and skull mask because it is the Day of the Dead. The pre-opening credits sequence is a pulse pounding one that made me tense up. All I'll say is it made me never want to ride in a helicopter ever.

One of films strength lies within its cinematography. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, whose other famous works include: Her (2013) and Interstellar (2014). Hoytema lights the film with bold colors. Shot on 35milimeter film, Spectre has a unique texture. There are definitely scenes of high contrast. The actors face's in the Tangier, Morocco sun glistens and both the primary male and female actors look beautiful. The film goes from the night scenes of Rome, to the foggy and the snowy atmosphere of Austria. The lighting of this film gave it a very mysterious and glob trotting vibe. Furthermore, the film used the technique of hard lighting. For instance, there was a scene where the evil Spectre organization was at a round table meeting. Christoph Waltz's face was shown in hard lighting and it wasn't till the end of the scene, we see his face in a reveal. This technique could also be placed under hard lighting, as Waltz's Obenhauser character turns out to be a big shock to Bond. The transition from out of the shadows and into the spotlight is used for dramatic effect. Overall, the film's look has a unique mixture of the colorful 1960's and the present day.

The acting was professional all around. Professional actors all lit up the screen and gave dynamic performances. While some may consider Daniel Craig a star in the film industry, I find him a much more professional actor that uses his fame of James Bond as a way to fuel his other dynamic performances. Craig is what I like to think of as a physical actor, but he has a certain class to him. Like all the Bond actors, there is the need to stretch their acting ability and perform in scenes of tension. In the films torture scene with Bond and Oberhauser, Craig shows acting range. We feel his pain and want to see him succeed. The female leads in the film Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci, both lend the typical performances that are found in Bond films. Surprisingly, Monica Bellucci is only in the film for about ten minutes. Léa Seydoux is the real star of the Spectre. Her character, Madaline, is the daughter of an assassin who was in the first two Craig outings, Mr. White. Both women are strong and completely independent, but also emotionally vulnerable. However, as in most Bond films, the female characters do get subdued by the title hero. All the actors seem to have sense of grounded reality. However, the main villain, Franz Oberhauser, was like most Bond villains, which is appropriately over the top when delivering their lines of dialogue. Unfortunately, by the end of the credits, I did not find him as scary or threatening as Javier Bardem's villain role in Skyfall. Perhaps if he was not in the shadows as much, and got more screen time, then I could have appreciated him more.

Overall, this was a good but not great James Bond film. My complaints of the film were that it was a bit overlong. At 148 minutes, it could have been cut down to the two hour mark. This is an issue I have with all the Craig Bond films, with the exception of Quantum of Solace which is a quick 106 minutes. Moreover, I would have wished to see more of the actor Christoph Waltz. Christoph Waltz is great actor who shines in Quintin Tartrantino films, and should have had more screen-time in Spectre. All I can say is this; if you like James Bond films you will be given what you'd expect. After twenty-four films and fifty three years, viewers are given quality entertainment well worth the ten dollar admission.